50 Palestinians evicted from Jerusalem homes

[Malthus]

Yeah I think controlling the press is a world away from making what's been a twenty year old procedural nightmare just last a bit longer, the goal being that it would be delayed until the Mitchell-Barak deal was in place at which point, presumably, there wouldn't be any settlement anyway.

Having the state interfere in justice for the purpose of delay seems to me to be just as bad, if not worse, than having the state interfere with the press for the same ends.

[viper37]

It seems that no-one seriously contests that the Shephardim owns the places; the Palestinian families had in fact a court ruling enabling them to live there as 'protected tenants'; but in some (unspecified) way they are alleged to have violated their tenancy agreement, and got evicted.

So, out of what *may* be nothing more than a squabble about the details of a tenancy agreement, we get - an international incident, Israelis compared to nazis, the whole nine yards. 

but we don't know how they violated their tenancy agreement.  All we get is the bullshit "this lands belong to us".  Wich makes me think they found a small tiny footprint somewhere in the agreement and used it to expel them.

The fact that Siegy is all in favor of it makes it even more suspicious

[The Minsky Moment]

Apparently not - at least according to Israeli law - since Palestinians had these homes for 50 years, yet Israeli law doesn't recognize they got a legal title.

There doesn't seem to be any law that recognizes they have legal title, because they were renters.  I am not aware of the legal doctrine that allows a leasehold to be converted into ownership simply because the leaseholder has been renting for a long time..

[Malthus]

but we don't know how they violated their tenancy agreement.  All we get is the bullshit "this lands belong to us".  Wich makes me think they found a small tiny footprint somewhere in the agreement and used it to expel them.

The fact that Siegy is all in favor of it makes it even more suspicious

The fact that those protesting the move don't even say at all that it is really a battle over a violated tenancy agreement (prefering the "OMG ISRAELIS = NAZIS, CALL THE UN!!!!" route), together with the fact that there were 50 (!) Palestinians crammed into two houses, makes me suspect the opposite - that they were piss-poor as tenants and that the owners had plenty of reason to eject them. That, and the fact that the Israeli courts tend to be actual courts and not the sort of trumped up state show courts that, apparently, the Israeli critics would prefer.

But fact is I have no clue what the actual disagreement was about and none of the so-called journalists covering the story, seemingly, have bothered to actually find out.

Has anyone got a copy of the actual judgment? I have no idea how to even look for it.

[The Minsky Moment]

Well, that's not true under Polish, German and I believe French law (and probably most legal systems based on German and French law, as well).

In these systems, the court ruling awarding the title to the party in possession of the property is a declaratory ruling, and even if that party didn't apply for such a ruling before the former owner tries to regain it, they still have a valid defense against such a claim if they have held the property for the sufficient period before the claim was made.

The transfer of title cannot be dependent on "who gets to the court first".

That is interesting, but of no relevance to what I said.

Adverse possession in common law jurisdictions requires that the possession be open and notorious (satisfied here) *and* that the legal owner fail to take timely efforts to protect and preserve its ownership (not satisfied here because the alleged owners have been asserting their interests for decades).  Otherwise, one could obtain possession of property by force and just waiting out the legal process.  I have a hard time believing civil law permits this.   In particular, I have never heard of a case of adverse possession involving renters who were paying rent to the purported owner.

[ulmont]

In particular, I have never heard of a case of adverse possession involving renters who were paying rent to the purported owner.

Because it's impossible.  Adverse possession requires that the possession be exclusive and hostile to the purported owner's rights; the possessors must act as if they own the property.  Paying rent is severely inconsistent with that.

[Martinus]

Or the Saudis asking the British to drop the bribery probe. Or the Americans asking the Poles to keep shut about the secret CIA prisons.

Things like this happen all the time.

It just shows once again a big fuck you from Israel to the rest of the Western world. I just wonder if and when they will be left to their own devices.

This is a private court case that has gone on since the 1980s. In exactly what way should the Israeli government interfere in the court system?

At least here in Canada, interference in the judiciary by the state tends to be frowned upon.

You would be right if it was a normal country. Israel however is not a normal country. It's a country which holds a claim to half of its territory that is about as strong as the claim held by Palestinians in this court case, and the court case concerns an occupied territory.

Considering that a big argument against Arab claims against Israel has been a call to forget the past, and recognize status quo, rather than go back decades and centuries to see who stole what from whom, I think it is rather troubling to see the law applied in such way in this case.

But perhaps the court is right and highlights an uncomfortable truth about the whole thing - i.e. that the Israeli ownership of the big part of its territory is illegal.

[Martinus]

Well, that's not true under Polish, German and I believe French law (and probably most legal systems based on German and French law, as well).

In these systems, the court ruling awarding the title to the party in possession of the property is a declaratory ruling, and even if that party didn't apply for such a ruling before the former owner tries to regain it, they still have a valid defense against such a claim if they have held the property for the sufficient period before the claim was made.

The transfer of title cannot be dependent on "who gets to the court first".

That is interesting, but of no relevance to what I said.

Adverse possession in common law jurisdictions requires that the possession be open and notorious (satisfied here) *and* that the legal owner fail to take timely efforts to protect and preserve its ownership (not satisfied here because the alleged owners have been asserting their interests for decades).  Otherwise, one could obtain possession of property by force and just waiting out the legal process.  I have a hard time believing civil law permits this.   In particular, I have never heard of a case of adverse possession involving renters who were paying rent to the purported owner.

You are now saying something else than you said previously. Sure, if the legal action was brought while the adverse possession period has not yet completed, then yes, you are correct. But you were previously saying that only because a legal action was brought, it is not possible to declare adverse possession - which is wrong.

As to the second part, again you are right, but I don't see it said anywhere that the Palestinians were paying rent for it, just that they originally came into the possession of this piece of property on the basis of a lease agreement.

Once a tenant stops acting like a tenant (e.g. paying rent) and begins to act like an owner (e.g. by treating the property as his own in terms of maintenance, improvements, etc.) then the adverse possession period begins to run.

[The Minsky Moment]

Has anyone got a copy of the actual judgment? I have no idea how to even look for it.

The Israeli Supreme Court has an English language search function, but I believe there is some delay in the translations so this one isn't up yet.

[Malthus]

You would be right if it was a normal country. Israel however is not a normal country. It's a country which holds a claim to half of its territory that is about as strong as the claim held by Palestinians in this court case, and the court case concerns an occupied territory.

Considering that a big argument against Arab claims against Israel has been a call to forget the past, and recognize status quo, rather than go back decades and centuries to see who stole what from whom, I think it is rather troubling to see the law applied in such way in this case.

But perhaps the court is right and highlights an uncomfortable truth about the whole thing - i.e. that the Israeli ownership of the big part of its territory is illegal.

The "the claim held by Palestinians in this court case", from what I can gather, was not that they owned the place, but rather that they were not in violation of their tenancy agreement.

WTF does that have to do with the status of the place as an "occupied territory"? Presumably if the case were held in a Jordanian court, shitting on the floor or failing to pay rent (or whatever the hell the Palestinans were found to have done in violation of their tenancy - again, details are lacking) would be just as much grounds for eviction as in Israel.

The "uncomfortable truth" seems to be that those reflexively anti-Israeli have reacted, yet again, in a knee jerk manner without knowledge of (or interest in) the actual facts.

Now, it could well be that the grounds for eviction are bullshit and there is a big injustice here. Generally the Israeli courts are reasonably fair, but they could be biased in this particular case. One would have to read the actual court case to see.

[Martinus]

Well, I'd assume the British would have checked the facts, so until I have better evidence I am going to trust them and their "knee-jerk anti-Israelism", than Siege and you, who seem to have a vested interest.

For the record, while I consider you and Joan to be reasonable in most cases, your only blind spot seems to be anything associated with Israel - I don't recall a single case in which you wouldn't rush to the defense of Israel's actions, no matter how controversial they have been.

I can't blame you too much for this - I have a similar thing when it comes to GLBT people - but that makes me less willing to trust you in this case unless I hear from an unbiased source.

[Malthus]

Well, I'd assume the British would have checked the facts, so until I have better evidence I am going to trust them and their "knee-jerk anti-Israelism", than Siege and you, who seem to have a vested interest.

The "facts" are what I've been able to glean from the newspaper articles. You can read them as well as I.

The Brits and Euros routinely "deplore" Israeli actions even, as in this case, when they are actions by private litigants.

[Malthus]

For the record, while I consider you and Joan to be reasonable in most cases, your only blind spot seems to be anything associated with Israel - I don't recall a single case in which you wouldn't rush to the defense of Israel's actions, no matter how controversial they have been.

I can't blame you too much for this - I have a similar thing when it comes to GLBT people - but that makes me less willing to trust you in this case unless I hear from an unbiased source.

You don't have to "trust" me on anything. I'm merely repeating what is in the various news articles about this particular story. I have not stated any fact unavailable to you.

So no need to break out the "OMG YOU BIASED!" ad hom. From what I've seen, one side to this debate is:

- uninterested in the actual facts of the case;
- breaking out the ad homs - accusing the other side of irredemable bias;
- leaping to Godwinize the situation (first post no less);
- demanding that the courts of another nation pervert or delay justice so as to reach what *they* think is the "correct" outcome in a private legal case.

Have I misstated any of this?

[Ed Anger]

I still trust you.

[Malthus]

I still trust you.

I do investment advice as well. Give me your bank account info.